Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Cosmos The In Lost

Home
Catholic
Science Doesn't Think: Neil deGrasse Tyson Busts a Move on Philosophy

Science Doesn't Think: Neil deGrasse Tyson Busts a Move on Philosophy

Last updated on: May 7, 2014 at 9:41 am by Artur Rosman

Science Doesn't Think: Neil deGrasse Tyson Busts a Move on Philosophy 2014-05-07T09:41:10-07:00 Artur Rosman

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Blogging is a spiritual exercise.

There are so many temptations to keep writing my dissertation uninterrupted instead of blogging, but how can I give into them if someone on the internet is WRONG?!

Ascesis calls.

Ascesis: Pierre Hadot will tell you that Philosophy is a Way of Life. Following him, in a recent book, Jean-Yves Lacoste tells you that spiritual exercises (changing your life) have always been at the heart of philosophy. If I ever get around to pitching his books, which I’ve translated, you’ll hear Dariusz Karlowicz telling you the same instead of reading excerpts here.

Neil deGrasse Tyson (henceforth “NDGT“) has made plenty of mistakes you’d expect from a science geek who wades into writing a humanities essay thinking his pocket protector and calculator and Wikipedia will help him write something intelligent.

These folks are a joy to grade, lemme tell ya!

[This doesn’t pertain to all my science students. There are some notable exceptions. I wish I could give you an honor roll.]

Damon Linker reports NDGT’s latest sin against the life of the mind is epic, but in line with what I’ve experienced grading:

“Behold the spectacle of an otherwise intelligent man and gifted teacher sounding every bit as anti-intellectual as a corporate middle manager or used-car salesman. He proudly proclaims his irritation with ‘asking deep questions’ that lead to a ‘pointless delay in your progress’ in tackling ‘this whole big world of unknowns out there.’ When a scientist encounters someone inclined to think philosophically, his response should be to say, ‘I’m moving on, I’m leaving you behind, and you can’t even cross the street because you’re distracted by deep questions you’ve asked of yourself. I don’t have time for that.'”

Apparently the clip where NDGT makes this thoughtless comment has proven embarrassing enough that the link is dead (UPDATE: I’m told it now lives again. What science could have predicted that resurrection?).

As luck would have it, I recently read a really fascinating book on the subject of thinking, theology, philosophy, and (thoughtless) science. In From Theology to Theological Thinking Jean-Yves Lacoste comments on Heidegger’s pithy statement from What is Called Thinking? :

“Science does not think.”

I know, I know, you’re probably thinking that Heidegger does not think, but even a blind hog gets an acorn every once in a while… Anyway, here’s Lacoste throwing an acorn to the blind German hog. It sheds light on what science really does:

“In Heidegger, science is defined by a work, the mathematization of being in its totality, as such alone capable of making verification, control, and prediction reign. This, and only this, is science. Again, its work is ‘mental’: who would deny it? This work is equally heuristic. Science, not content merely to master, also does the work of discovery. But once these first truths are conceded, that which Heidegger’s formula tells us is still poorly understood. Science lives out of an ambition and a capacity: to structure mathematically everything that is. But, we ask, is this all there is to do in order to get to know the totality of being? The shortest phenomenological description (and, no doubt, descriptions other than the phenomenological) allows us to respond negatively. Not only is there a reality that is not mathematizable, or of which we would lose the exact sense if we want to submit it to mathematization, but also what we cannot mathematize is perhaps the most important.”

Good luck sticking this in your calculator.

Lacoste does not take the easy way out, as Jean-Luc Marion does in his achingly beautiful The Erotic Phenomenon, by talking about love. No, Lacoste instead gives you a striking example from the history of art:

“It is possible to articulate the Pietà of Michelangelo through equations. But having done this, we have rendered an account not of a work of art but of an object analogous to every other object. We have performed a mental work, just as the scientist specializing in meteorology performs a mental work… However the scientist describes in order to predict. To describe the statue mathematically, on the other hand, has no other end in sight than to demonstrate our mathematical competency–and the statue is merely the occasion to demonstrate it.”

Sounds a little masturbatory, doesn’t it? Math, doing math, for the sake of math. But between all the button pushing we miss the bust, or rather the statue, for the equation.

I don’t have time for that, because, as Wittgenstein famously said:

“We feel that even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched.”

So much for scientific imperialism, or what’s called scientism. What remains is forging my life by returning to my dissertation on Milosz.

Ain’t no calculator, ain’t no scientist, that’ll do that for me!

Meanwhile, you can amuse yourself with this 8-bit presentation of why Nietzsche thought science has always had a secret crush on theology. You don’t have to buy everything the atheist Nietzsche says, but there’s no reason why we can’t learn something new about theology from atheists. Beyond that, philosophy and theology have more than a crush on each other, they have a secret kinship, because much of what we consider to be the sole property of religion actually originated in philosophy, for example, practices of prayer.

Atheism

Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey

Phenomenology

Philosophy

Science & Religion

Cosmos spacetime odyssey

Jean-Yves Lacoste

neil de grasse tyson philosophy

Previous Post

May 1, 2014

Hans Urs von Balthasar and Weakness as Apologetic Form

Next Post

May 21, 2014 Saint Socrates: What Damon Linker Got Wrong About Philosophy

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category #WhyRemainCatholic Abortion Advent Anti-Catholicism Arts Atheism Beauty Benedict XVI Bible Book Review Catholic Cinema Comedy Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey Czesław Miłosz Dariusz Karłowicz Devil Easter Eastern Orthodoxy Economics Environment Family Famous Atheists Who Weren't Atheists Guest Post Hans Urs von Balthasar HHS Mandate History Imagination Interview Islam Jean-Luc Marion John Paul II Judaism Just War Lent Literature Little Sisters of the Poor Liturgy Martyrdom Music News Paganism Patristics Phenomenology Philosophy Pierre Hadot Poetry Poland Pop Culture Pope Francis Poverty Prayer Protestantism Rabelais Race Remi Brague Rene Girard Russia Sam Rocha Science & Religion SCOTUS Secularization Sexual Abuse Sexuality Silence Solidarity Stratford Caldecott Synod14 Terrorism Top 10 Uncategorized Walker Percy War Weakened Edition World War II World Youth Day WYD Krakow

Select a Month July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What animal did Balaam's donkey see that Balaam could not?

Select your answer to see how you score.

An angel A storm A lion A snake